02 - Regala Vs Sandiganbayan.docx

“That in all things, God may be Glorified.”

TITLE REGALA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 105938 Date September 20, 1996 Ponente KAPUNAN, J.

DOCTRINE: Passed on into various provisions of the Rules of Court, the attorney-client privilege, as currently worded provides: Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. - The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: xxx An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, can an attorneys secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.[29] Further, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states: Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney: (e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his clients business except from him or with his knowledge and approval. This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that: Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s name itself has an independent significance, such that disclosure would then reveal client confidences. FACTS The case stemmed out from a Complaint through PCGG against Eduardo Cojuangco and other for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, including shares of stock from various corporations. Among the defendants were partners of the ACCRA Law Firm, who admit that they assisted in the organization and acquisition of the companies included in Civil Case No. 0033, and in keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-stockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration proceedings. ACCRA lawyers were included as defendants in the Third Amended Complaint, as it was alleged that plotted, devised, schemed, conspired and confederated with each other in setting up, through the use of the coconut levy funds, the financial and corporate framework and structures that led to the establishment of UCPB and other companies, including the acquisition of San Miguel Corporation shares and its institutionalization. That through ACCRA Investments Corporation, became the holder of approximately fifteen million shares representing roughly 3.3% of the total outstanding capital stock of UCPB, being number 44 out of the 100 biggest stockholders, In its Answer, ACCRA stated that the acts they did was in furtherance of lawyering and that they only became holders of stock but they do not claim any proprietary interest over it. They subsequently filed their “COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION” with Counter-Motion that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to them (exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded private respondent ROCO. In its Comment, PCGG set conditions precedent for their exclusion, including the disclosure of the identity of its clients, the submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client relationship; and the submission

Aurea | Baylon | Cueva | De Alva | De Jesus | Enriquez | Feliciano | Gayona | Gomez | Guinto | Loria | Manuel | Montero | Santiago | Santos | Sembrano | Tan | Villarido Evidence (2018-2019)

“That in all things, God may be Glorified.”

of the deeds of assignments ACCRA LAWYERS executed in favor of its clients covering their respective shareholdings. PCGG presented supposed proof to substantiate compliance by ROCO. Sandiganbayan promulgated the Resolution, herein questioned, denying the exclusion of ACCRA LAWYERS in PCGG Case No. 33, for their refusal to comply with the conditions required by respondent PCGG. ISSUE/S Whether the attorney-client privilege prohibits petitioners from revealing the identity of their clients and the other information requested by the PCGG. RULING YES. It would seem that petitioners are merely standing in for their clients as defendants in the complaint. Petitioners are being prosecuted solely on the basis of activities and services performed in the course of their duties as lawyers. Petitioners’ inclusion as co-defendants in the complaint is merely being used as leverage to compel them to name their clients and consequently to enable the PCGG to nail these clients. Such being the case, respondent PCGG has no valid cause of action as against petitioners and should exclude them from the Third Amended Complaint. In the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith, that is required by reason of necessity and public interest based on the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists between lawyer and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic and fruitful exchange and flow of information. It necessarily follows that in order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must invoke the privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and professional responsibility. As a matter of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Under this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction as well as in the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client. Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however qualified by some important exceptions: 

Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the clients name would implicate that client in the very activity for which he sought the lawyers advice.



Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is privileged.For instance, the peculiar facts and circumstances of Neugass v. Terminal Cab Corporation,[37] prompted the New York Supreme Court to allow a lawyers claimto the effect that he could not reveal the name of his client because this would expose the latter to civil litigation.



Where the governments lawyers have no case against an attorneys client unless, by revealing the clients name, the said name would furnish the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a crime, the clients name is privileged.

Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other situations which could qualify as exceptions to the general rule. For example, the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, the identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such revelation would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction. The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least two exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client's name would lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact in issue of the case, which Aurea | Baylon | Cueva | De Alva | De Jesus | Enriquez | Feliciano | Gayona | Gomez | Guinto | Loria | Manuel | Montero | Santiago | Santos | Sembrano | Tan | Villarido Evidence (2018-2019)

“That in all things, God may be Glorified.”

is privileged information, because the privilege, as stated earlier, protects the subject matter or the substance. An important distinction must be made between a case where a client takes on the services of an attorney for illicit purposes, seeking advice about how to go around the law for the purpose of committing illegal activities and a case where a client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal and consults his attorney about it. The first case clearly does not fall within the privilege because the same cannot be invoked for purposes illegal. The second case falls within the exception because whether or not the act for which the advice turns out to be illegal, his name cannot be used or disclosed if the disclosure leads to evidence, not yet in the hands of the prosecution, which might lead to possible action against him. There are alternative sources of information available to the prosecutor which do not depend on utilizing a defendant's counsel as a convenient and readily available source of information in the building of a case against the latter. The uberrimei fidei relationship between a lawyer and his client therefore imposes a strict liability for negligence on the former. The ethical duties owing to the client, including confidentiality, loyalty, competence, diligence as well as the responsibility to keep clients informed and protect their rights to make decisions have been zealously sustained. The utmost zeal given by Courts to the protection of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege and lawyer's loyalty to his client is evident in the duration of the protection, which exists not only during the relationship, but extends even after the termination of the relationship. We have no choice but to uphold petitioners' right not to reveal the identity of their clients under pain of the breach of fiduciary duty owing to their clients, because the facts of the instant case clearly fall within recognized exceptions to the rule that the clients name is not privileged information. By compelling petitioners to submit said documents, the PCGG would exact from petitioners a link that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to convict the (client) of a crime. ADDITIONAL NOTES/DETAILS

Aurea | Baylon | Cueva | De Alva | De Jesus | Enriquez | Feliciano | Gayona | Gomez | Guinto | Loria | Manuel | Montero | Santiago | Santos | Sembrano | Tan | Villarido Evidence (2018-2019)